It was promoted as the first debate among Republican presidential hopefuls. At least, it gave us a side-by-side look at the aspirants and a chance to begin associating names with faces. However, it was hardly a debate unless you put one pair of gloves on Chris Mathews, handed out ten more pairs to the candidates, and applied the Marquis Of Queensbury rules. People are conjecturing about who won, who lost, who was more ‘Reaganesque’ and so forth. How can you tell?
The event might better have been billed as a 90-minute version of “Hardball”. Mathews, clearly, did not understand that the event was about the candidates, not him. It was the most obscene hack job by a no-talent lightweight I’ve ever seen. He demonstrated all the class of a small dog with a big fire hydrant. Mathews badgered the candidates with questions that were either obvious Democrat and media talking points or were simply stupid. He interfered to the degree there was neither a way to ascertain anyone’s position on an issue nor to determine who might have come out on top in the fiasco. If there was a loser, I’m afraid it was the American people.
To begin with, it’s ridiculous to ask someone this early what they would do after January 2009; things simply change too much, too fast. The one thing you can wager is the Lib media will have, whomever is in office two years from now, regrettably trying to defend the impulsive response they gave last night. What do questions like, “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back in the White House?” or “What do you dislike most about America?” have to do with anything, if even Mathew’s lynch mob mentality? Furthermore, the event was overshadowed by a huge missing figure that could change the entire landscape of both Republican and Democrat races. The silence of Fred Thompson’s absence registered a more resounding difference among hopefuls than any words he could have spoken, were he a current candidate. I thought, at times, we were watching a long line of co-stars.
My sincere congratulations to all the presidential aspirants for taking on the challenge of Chris Mathews’ nonsense, for treading the high road as they were repeatedly prodded toward bashing either the President or each other and, most especially, for just showing up. The fact that they were willing to appear on a hostile, Democrat network, whereas the Lib candidates all refused to engage on Fox, speaks volumes about the quality difference between the least of the Republicans and the best of the Democrats. Who has the character to face tough situations and who will whine and run the other way? We can, already, hear the beeping sound of the Dem’s massive reverse gear in the Global War on Terror. It’s one of many differences you need to remember, down the line, at the ballot box.
R.S.F.
0 Responses to “Lightweight Hardball”